Fact sheets on genetically modified organisms

No. 1 Flaws in the EU authorisation process for GMOs

No. 2 Facts and figures about genetically modified organisms

No. 3 Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence

No. 4 The social and economic impacts of GMOs

Flaws in the EU authorisation process for GMOs

There exists a fundamental problem in the process by uncertainty. Armed with this broader set of data, it which GMOs are assessed for safety and authorisation must take a decision. in Europe. As EC Regulation 178/2002 states: “It is recognised Scientific opinions provided by a single organisation, that scientific risk assessment alone cannot, in some the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), are cases provide all the information on which a risk translated into decisions with no broader management decision should be based, and that other consideration of societal or economic arguments for factors relevant to the matter under consideration and against the introduction of GMO crops and should legitimately be taken into account including products into Europe. societal, economic, traditional, ethical and environmental factors and the feasibility of controls”3. This situation contravenes EU legal requirements for a broad consideration of a GM product’s risks and There is no evidence to suggest that the European impacts. Commission currently takes these ‘other factors’ into account. The Commission asked EFSA (April 2006, Risk assessment versus IP/06/498) "to provide more detailed risk management justification, in its opinions on individual Duty to follow predominant EFSA’s founding regulation applications, for not accepting scientific position objections raised by the national competent articulates the distinction between authorities" and "to address more explicitly The European Commission pledged risk management and risk potential long-term effects and bio-diversity (in 1999) to “act in such a way as assessment: issues in their risk assessments for the placing to avoid going against any on the market of GMOs". predominant position which might Risk assessment is EFSA’s task. It emerge within the Council against coordinates scientific committees, 1 the appropriateness of an which provide advice to decision-makers . implementing measure”4. Risk management, in contrast, is the job of the In fact, the Council has consistently questioned the European Commission. To make a decision, it should safety and usefulness of the GM products submitted consult experts, including EFSA, but also national for authorisation and has voted against the authorities, the European Group on Ethics in Science Commission’s positive proposals. Never have member and New Technologies, and other stakeholders. states given majority backing to a GMO for marketing or cultivation in Europe. ‘Risk management’ “means the process, distinct from risk By approving every GMO application to date, the assessment, of weighing policy alternatives in consultation with interested parties, considering risk assessment and Commission has consistently disregarded its pledge to other legitimate factors, and, if need be, selecting respect a ‘predominant position’ within the Council. appropriate prevention and control options”2. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) At present, EFSA’s decisions form the sole basis for EU authorisations of GMOs (all positive decisions to risk assessments date). EFSA must also bear its share of the blame, as it, too, has violated obligations. Socio-economic factors • By not requesting that GMO must be considered producers submit any data on the Over 20 member states criticised long-term effects of GM products The European Commission is obliged, EFSA for failing to conduct long-term for which they seek EU under EU law, to consider other evaluations of GMOs and for ignoring authorisation, EFSA has failed to available scientific evidence, socio- member states’ comments and concerns (Environment Council, identify and evaluate cumulative economic implications and scientific 9 March 2006). long-term effects of GMOs as required under Directive 2001/18 and Figure 1: Authorisation process according to EU law Regulation 178/20025;

• Despite a legal requirement to consider 6 Data submitted by diverging scientific opinions [Reg. 178/2002] , applicant company there is no evidence that the EFSA has given due consideration to differences between the scientific opinions of member states’ competent authorities and those of its own Public MS competent EFSA Independent Socio- GMO panel . opinion authority opinion scientific economic + ethical opinion studies impacts • EFSA is supposed to identify areas of factors scientific uncertainty [Comm Decision 2002/623; Reg. 178/2002]7 but, in practice, Scientific uncertainty EFSA does not do so. Failing to acknowledge that uncertainty exists compromises the Feasibility of controls ability of risk managers (Commission and member states) to make informed decisions in Precautionary principle the public interest. Proper assessment of GMOs would include a European study of direct, indirect, cumulative and long-term Commission effects of GMOs on the environment and on (Risk manager) health, taking into account various stress conditions and different regional environments.

Council of Ministers Conclusion EFSA was not set up to rubber-stamp GMO Final decision applications from agro-chemical firms. EFSA must respect EU law and strictly follow the prescribed procedures. The Commission must perform its role as risk manager and consider other available scientific evidence, socio-economic implications and Figure 2: Current process scientific uncertainty.

Data submitted by applicant company

References Public MS competent EFSA Independent Socio- 1 EFSA Executive Director Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle says the role of EFSA is opinion authority opinion scientific economic to “advise risk managers on the safety of GMOs. EFSA’s + ethical opinion studies impacts experts make an independent scientific assessment of GMO applications. It is then up to Member States and the European Commission to decide whether factors or not to authorise a specific GMO”. Scientific uncertainty http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/News_PR/pr_gmo_en,0.pdf 2 Regulation 178/2002 establishing the European Food Safety Authority, Article 3(1) n.12 Feasibility of controls 3 Regulation 178/2002, Recital 19 4 European Commission Declarations on Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 Precautionary principle June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1999/C 203/01). 5 See Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs, Annex II as European well as Regulation 178/2002 establishing the European Food Safety Authority, Article 14(4). Commission 6 Regulation 178/2002, Article 30(4) “Where a substantive divergence over (Risk manager) scientific issues has been identified and the body in question is a Member State body, the Authority and the national body shall be obliged to cooperate with a view to either resolving the divergence or preparing a joint document Council of Ministers clarifying the contentious scientific issues and identifying the relevant uncertainties in the data. This document shall be made public” 7 Regulation 178/2002, Article 7(1) “In specific circumstances where, following Final decision = an assessment of available information, the possibility of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists, provisional risk EFSA opinion management measures necessary to ensure the high level of health protection chosen in the Community may be adopted, pending further scientific information for a more comprehensive risk assessment”.

April 2008. European Unit. www.greenpeace.eu Facts and figures about genetically modified organisms

Every year, an organisation funded by the genetic sells more than 90% of all GM seeds engineering industry called the International Service worldwide. In recent years it has stopped selling or for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications developing GM wheat, tomatoes, potatoes and (ISAAA) publishes new figures and highlights the bananas. It has given up trying to sell GMOs direct to increase in the acreage of land planted with genetically the public, and now focuses on commodity crops modified organisms (GMOs) across the world1. which go straight from farmer to industrial processor. These are the facts that the ISAAA does not put in its A decade after GM was first marketed, six of press release: the world’s top 10 maize producing countries are 100% GM-free. Even in the US, GM maize represents  92% of arable land around the world is GMO less than half of all maize grown. free; Worldwide, just 7.5% of farmland is planted with  Only four countries grow almost 90% of the total GMOs. The world map in the ISAAA report1 shows GM crops; countries where up to 50,000 hectares are planted with GMOs, failing to indicate that most of these countries 176 out of the 192 countries grow no GMOs at  plant only a few hundred hectares. Claims that Europe all; is alone in not planting GM crops are patently  In over 10 years on the market, only four GM inaccurate. crops are grown in significant quantity – soya, In Europe, ISAAA stated a 77% increase in cultivation maize, and oil-seed rape (canola). These of GMOs in 2007, still only 0.119 % of agricultural four crops represent 99% of GMOs sold; land was planted with such crops. (This is how a very  Virtually 100% of world acreage planted with small increase in acreage can be made to look like commercial GM crops have one or both of just enormous progress.) For comparison, in 2006 organic two traits: herbicide-tolerance and insect- farmland represented 4% of EU agricultural land, resistance. covering an area larger than 6.8 million hectares managed by over 170,000 farms. With these poor results, is it any surprise that US government representatives and agro-chemical lobbyists are putting such pressure on Europe and developing countries to accept GMOs?

The power of public relations over fact

In its heavily promoted reports, the ISAAA assumes that the entire population of any country where GMOs are grown benefits from GM crops. It calculates, for example, that 80 million people in Germany - the total population - benefit from GMO crops, even though the 43km2 of German soil planted with GMOs could barely support 8,000 people, let alone 80 million. The four countries that grow 90% of GMOs worldwide are the US (53%), Argentina (18%), Brazil Claims that GM crops increase yields are similarly (11.5%) and (6.1%). exaggerated. The GM crops currently commercialised are either tolerant to herbicides or insect resistant. Almost all GM crops currently released belong to four Herbicide-tolerant crops do not increase yields. companies: Monsanto, Dupont, and . Insect-resistant GM crops may increase yields in years Recently, the International Assessment of Agricultural of high infestation by the target pest, but this leads Science and Technology for Development5 brought pests to develop resistance in the medium and longer together 400 scientists, UN agencies, governments, term. Studies in Europe found that yield depend on non-governmental organisations, industry and farmer the crop variety2 rather than on the genetic associations across the globe for a four-year scientific modification applied. Studies have also found lower project. This is the equivalent for agriculture as is the yields from GM insect-resistant maize compared to IPCC report for climate change. The Synthesis conventional non-GM maize. Report, endorsed by 60 governments, concludes that genetically modified crops are not a solution for Neither does planting GM crops reduce the use of poverty, hunger or climate change. chemical pesticides on farmland, despite what agro- biotechnological companies claim. In fact, from 1996 to 2004 parallel to increasing cultivation of GM crops References in the US there was an observed 55,000 kg increase in pesticide use, a 4.1% rise3. 1 James, Clive. 2007.Global Status of Commercialized Biotech - GM Crops:2007. ISAAA Brief No. 37.Executive summary.ISAAA: Ithaca, The target pest insects will inevitably develop NY.http://www.isaaa.org/ resistance to the pesticides produced by GM crops4. 2 Ma, B.L., & Subedi, K.D.2005. Development, yield,grain moisture This will oblige farmers to apply both greater and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near- isolines. Field Crops Research 93:199–211. quantities and additional varieties of insecticide in the 3 Benbrook, Charles M. 2004. GeneticallyEngineered Crops and coming years. The main beneficiaries then become the Pesticide Use in the United States:The First Nine Years. BioTech companies that make pesticides, which are often the InfoNet Technical Paper Number7, October 2004: 39-40 same companies that make GMOs. 4 Tabashnik, B.E., Gassmann, A.J., Crowder,D.W. &Carrière, Y. 2008. Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versustheory. Nature Any perceived benefits of GM crops – such as 26: 199-202. increased yields in occasional years and reduced 5 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology insecticide usage – are thus short-lived. for Development (IAASTD) 2008. Synthesis Report Executive Summary.http://www.agassessment.org/ Meanwhile, various scientific studies have concluded serious and valid concerns on the effects of these crops on ‘non-target’ organisms such as butterflies and predators of the target pests. April 2008. Greenpeace European Unit. www.greenpeace.eu Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence

Effects on biodiversity • Agricultural wastes from Bt maize have been identified entering water courses, where the Bt The environmental effects of genetically engineered 21 crops designed to resist insect pests and herbicides are toxin might be toxic to certain insects . This well documented. They are as follows. demonstrates the complexity of interactions in the natural environment and underlines the Insect-resistant crops kill specific pests known to shortcomings of the risk assessment. threaten the crop. In addition to their intended deadly Bt maize is more susceptible to a plant lice effects, they are also: • (aphid) than conventional maize, caused by • Toxic to ‘non-target’ organisms, such as changes in sap chemistry. These changes have not butterflies. Long-term exposure to pollen from been described in a single application to market GM maize that expresses the Bt maize but have important ecological (Bt) toxin has been found to cause adverse effects implications. This demonstrates that plant-insect on the behaviour1 and survival2 of the monarch interactions are too complex to be assessed by the butterfly, the best-known of all North American risk assessment. butterflies. Effects on European butterflies are virtually unknown, as few studies have been Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are associated with: conducted. Those few do, however, suggest cause • Toxic effects of herbicides on ecosystems. for concern that European butterflies would Roundup, the herbicide sold by Monsanto in suffer as a result of insect-resistant GM crop 3, 4, 5, 6 conjunction with its Roundup Ready GM crops, being planted . has been shown to be a potential endocrine disrupter, i.e., could interfere • Toxic to other, beneficial insects. 22 GM maize MON810 is intended to with hormones . It is also toxic Genetically engineered Bt crops 23 adversely affect7 insects that are prevent the need for three to frog larvae(tadpoles) . important in the natural control applications of insecticide. Yet this and other Bt maize varieties • Increased weed tolerance to of maize pests, such as green herbicide. Evolution of weed lacewings.8, 9, 10, 11 In the EU (as continuously release a toxin into the environment in quantities 3- resistance to Roundup is now a elsewhere), environmental risk serious problem in the US and assessment for Bt crops 5,000 times higher than sprays used for non-GM farming. other places where Roundup considers direct acute toxicity Ready crops are grown on a alone, and not effects on large scale24 25, 26, 27. Increasing organisms higher up the food chain. These effects amounts of herbicide have to be used to control can be important. The toxic effects of Bt crops on these weeds28, or else additional herbicides have to lacewings were via the prey that they ate. The be used to supplement Roundup29. ‘single-tier’ risk assessment approach has been widely criticised, with scientists suggesting that • Loss of weeds and other biodiversity. A UK the effects of Bt crops need to be studied at government study found there were 24 % fewer 12, 13, 14, 15 multiple levels of the food web . butterflies in the margins of GM oil-seed rape (canola) fields, because there were fewer weed • A threat to soil ecosystems. Many Bt crops secrete flowers (and hence nectar) for them to feed on30. the toxin from the root into the soil16. Residues left 17, 18, 19 In addition, there were fewer seeds for birds from in the field contain the active Bt toxin . The oil-seed rape and sugar beet31, 32, 33. HT maize only long-term, cumulative effects of growing Bt maize compared favourably (in terms of impacts on have not been considered in a European context, biodiversity) to maize treated with the herbicide even though this is required under EU law atrazine, which is now banned in the EU. (Directive 2001/18)20. • Reduction in soil bacteria. The use of herbicides In addition to the above, risk assessments to date have on GM soy leads to reduced amounts of beneficial failed to foresee at least two other impacts of Bt maize: nitrogen-fixing bacteria34, 35. Wolfenbarger,L.L. 2005. Genetically engineered organisms and Effects on health Sir David King, the UK government’s the environment: current status and recommendations. Ecological Applications, 15: 377–404. Independent studies on the former chief scientist, was forced in 14 Andow, D.A. & A. Hilbeck. 2004. Science-based risk assessment for non-target effects of transgenic crops. wholesomeness of GM crops for December 2007 to admit he had Bioscience, 54: 637-649. either animals or humans are been mistaken to claim that 15 Knols, B.G.J. and M. Dicke. 2003.Bt crop assessment in the Netherlands. Nature Biotechnology 21: 973-974. severely lacking from scientific improved crop yields in Africa were 16 Saxena, D., Flores,S. & Stotzky, G.2002. Bt toxin is released 36, 37, 38, 39 in root exudates from 12 transgenic corn hybrids representing literature . due to GM plants. They weren’t. The three transformation events. Soil and Biochemistry 34: project he described used a 133-137. 17 Flores, S.,Saxena, D & Stotzky,G. 2005. Transgenic Bt Almost all GMOs commercialised in sophisticated pest control and crop plants decompose less in soil than non-Bt plants. Soil Biology the world either produce or tolerate and Biochemistry 37: 1073-1082. management technique that involved 18 Stotzky, G. 2004. Persistence and biological activity in soil pesticides. Yet while pesticides are neither GMOs nor pesticides. of the insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis, especially from transgenic plants. Plant and Soil 266: 77-89. tested over two-year periods prior to 19 Zwahlen, C. Hilbeck, A. Gugerli, P.& Nentwig, W. 2003. approval in Europe, the longest Degradation of the Cry1Ab protein within transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn tissue in the field. Molecular Ecology 12: 765-775. safety tests for GMOs are 90 days, including 20 Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, see Recital 19, Recital 20 and Annex II : “A general principle for pesticide-producing GM plants. environmental risk assessment is also that an analysis of the .cumulative long-term effects relevant to the release and the placing on the market is to be carried out. Cumulative long-term effects. refers We simply do not know if GM crops are safe for to the accumulated effects of consents on human health and the environment, including inter alia flora and fauna, soil fertility, oil degradation of organic material, the feed/food chain, biological animal or human consumption, because long-term diversity, animal health and resistance problems in relation to antibiotics”. 21 Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Tank, J.L., Royer, T.V., Whiles, M.R., Evans-White, Chambers,M., C., studies have seldom been performed. This is reflected Griffiths, N.A., Pokelsek,J. & Stephen, M.L. 2007. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may by the ongoing controversy surrounding their safety affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proceedings National Academy Sciences 41: 16204– 16208 assessment. The dispute over the pesticide-producing 22 Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar,H., Benachour, N. &Seralini, G-E. 2005.Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Bt maize MON863, for example, arose from concerns Health Perspectives 113: 716–720. 40 23 Relyea, R.A. 2005. Theimpact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and expressed by independent scientists over observed productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications 15: 618-627. Relyea, R.A.2005. differences in animal feed trials. Rather than admitting The lethal impact of roundup on aquatic terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications, 15: 1118–1124. Relyea, R.A., Schoeppner, N.M. & Hoverman, J.T.2005. Pesticides and amphibians: uncertainty concerning the food safety of MON863 the importance of community context. Ecological Applications, 15: 1125–1134. and carrying out further research, EFSA41 and the 24 Roy, B.A. 2004.Rounding up the costs and benefits of herbicide use. Proceedings of the 42 National Academy of Sciences 101: 13974-13975. biotechnology industry have used their efforts to try 25 Baucom, R.S. & Mauricio, R. 2004. Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101: 13386–13390. to refute the significance of these findings. 26 Vitta, J.I., Tuesca,D. & Puricelli, E. 2004. Widespread use of glyphosate tolerant soybean and weed community richness in Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 103: 621–624. It is ungrounded and misleading to argue that GMOs 27 Nandula, V.K., Reddy, K.N.,Duke, S.O. & Poston,D.H. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant weeds: must be harmless to health on the grounds that people current status and future outlook. Outlooks on Pest Management August 2005: 183-187. 28 Duke, S.O.2005. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. living in the US have been consuming them for 10 Pest Management Science 61: 211–218. 29 http://farmindustrynews.com/mag/farming_saving_glyphosate/index.html years and no visible damage has been observed. There 30 Roy, D.B., Bohan, D. A., Haughton, A.J., Hill, M. O.,Osborne, J. L., Clark, S. J., Perry, J. N., has not been a study on this specific matter. Rothery, P., Scott, R. J., Brooks, D. R., Champion,G. T., Hawes, C., Heard, M. S. & Firbank, L. G. 2003. Invertebrates and vegetation of field margins adjacent to crops subject to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant What is not in doubt is that GM crops have the crops. The Royal Society Philosophical Transactions B. 358: 1879–1898 31 Heard, M.S. et al.2003. Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically potential to cause allergenic reactions, more so than modified herbicide-tolerant crops. I. Effects on abundance and diversity Philosophical 43, 44 Transactions of the Royal Society London B 358: 1819–1832. conventional breeding . During a long-term field 32 Firbank, L.G. et al. 2006.Effects of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant cropping trial in , for example, GM peas were found to systems on weed seedbanks in two years of following crops. Biology Letters 2: 140-143 45 33 Bohan, D.A. et al. 2005. Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of cause allergenic reactions in mice . Eating the GM herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape. Journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 272, DOI peas also made the mice more sensitive to other food 10.1098/rspb.2004.3049. allergies. 34 King, C.A., Purcell, L.C. & Vories, E.D. 2001. Plant growth and nitrogenase activity of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in response to foliar glyphosate applications. Agronomy Journal 93: 179–186. 35 Zablotowicz, R.M. & Reddy, K.N.2004. Impact of glyphosate on the Bradyrhizobium References japonicum symbiosis with glyphosate-resistant transgenic soybean: a minireview. Journalof 1 Prasifka, P.L., Hellmich, R.L.,Prasifka, J.R. & Lewis, L.C. 2007.Effects of Cry1Ab-expressing Environmental Quality 33: 825–831. corn anthers on the movement of monarch butterfly larvae. Environ Entomolology 36:228-33 36 Vain, P. 2007. Trends inGM crop, food and feed safety literature. Nature Biotechnology 2 Dively, G.P., Rose,R., Sears, M.K., Hellmich, R.L.Stanley-Horn, D.E. Calvin, D.D. Russo, J.M. & Correspondence 25: 624-626. Anderson, P.L..2004. Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after 37 Domingo, J.L. 2007. Toxicitystudies of genetically modified plants: a review of the continuous exposure to Cry1Ab expressing corn during anthesis. Environmental Entomology published literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 47:8, 721 – 733 33: 1116-1125. 38 Pryme, I.F. &Lembcke, R. 2003. In vivostudies on possible health consequences of 3 Lang, A. & Vojtech, E. 2006. The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the genetically modified food and feed —with particular regard to ingredients consisting of common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae).Basic and Applied Ecology genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition and Health 17: 1-8. 7: 296—306. 39 Brown, P., Wilson, K.A.., Jonker,Y. & Nickson, T.E. 2003. Glyphosate Tolerant Canola Meal 4 Darvas, B., Lauber, E., Polga´r,L. A., Peregovits, L., Ronkay, L., Juracsek,J., et al. (2004). Non- Is Equivalent to the Parental Line in Diets Fed to Rainbow Trout. Journal of Agricultural Food target effects of DK-440-BTY (Yieldgard) Bt-corn. First Hungarian–Taiwanese entomological and Chemistry, 51: 4268-4272. symposium, 11–12 October 2004, Budapest Hungarian National History Museum (p. 5). 40 Séralini, G.E., Cellier, D., de Vendomois, J.,S., 2007.New analysis of a rat feeding study with 5 Felke, V.M. & Langenbruch,G.A. 2003. Wirkung von Bt-Mais-Pollen auf Raupen des a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Tagpfauenauges im Laborversuch (Effect of Bt-maize-pollen on caterpillars of Inachis io in a Contamination & Toxicolcology,52, 596-602. laboratory assay). Gesunde Pflanzen, 55: 1-7. 41 EFSA, 2007. EFSA reviewof statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 6 Felke, M., Lorenz, N.& Langenbruch, G-A. 2002. Laboratorystudies on the effects of pollen 863 90-day rat feeding study. from Bt-maize on larvae of some butterfly species. Journal of Applied Entomology 126: 320– http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/scientific_reports/statistical_analyses_MON863.html 325. 42 Doull, J., Gaylor, D., Greim, H.A.,Lovell, D.P., Lynch, B. &Munro I.C. 2007. Report of an 7 Obrist, L.B., Dutton, A., Romeis, J. & Bigler, F. 2006. Biological activityof Cry1Ab toxin Expert Panel on the reanalysis by Seralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by expressed by Bt maize following ingestion by herbivorous arthropods and exposure of the Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863). Food predator Chrysoperla carnea. BioControl 51: 31-48. and Chemical Toxicology 45: 2073–2085 8 Andow, D.A. and A.Hilbeck. 2004. Science-based risk assessment for non-target effects of 43 Bernstein, J.A. et al. 2003. Clinical and laboratoryinvestigation of allergy to genetically transgenic crops. Bioscience 54: 637-649. modified foods. Environmental Health Perspectives 111:1114–1121. 9 Obrist, L.B., Dutton, A., Romeis, J. & Bigler, F. 2006. Biological activityof Cry1Ab toxin 44 Freese, W. & Schubert, D. 2004. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered expressed by Bt maize following ingestion by herbivorous arthropods and exposure of the foods. Biotechnology and Reviews, 21: 229-324. predator Chrysoperla carnea. BioControl 51: 31-48. 45 Prescott, V.E., Campbell, P.M.,Moore, A., Mattes, J., Rothenberg, M.E., Foster,P.S., Higgins, 10 Harwood, J.D., Wallin, W.G.& Obrycki, J.J. 2005. Uptake of Bt endotoxins by non-target T.J.V.& Hogan, S.P. 2005.Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results herbivores and higher order arthropod predators: molecular evidence from a transgenic corn in altered structure and immunogenicity.Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry 53: 9023- agroecosystem. Molecular Ecology 14: 2815-2823. 9030 11 Lövei, G.L. & Arpaia, S. 2005.The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 114: 1–14, 2005. 12 Andow, D.A. & Zwahlen, C.2006. Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecology Letters 9: 196-214. 13 Snow, A. A.,Andow,D.A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E.M., Power, A., Tiedje, J.M. & April 2008. Greenpeace European Unit. www.greenpeace.eu The social and economic impacts of GMOs

Companies that develop and sell genetically 10% lower yield than equivalent conventional engineered seeds say that everyone – from rich to varieties5. poor; farmer, consumer or industrialist – benefits from their crops. Meanwhile, researchers have been trialling drought- tolerant and disease-resistant pearl millet varieties A brief look beyond the hype and promotional developed through marker-assisted selection6. Pearl brochures would tell a different story. millet is an important subsistence crop for millions of farmers in agriculturally marginal areas. In the 11 years since GM crops entered the market, conventional and organic crops have been repeatedly Scientists in the Philippines are using marker-assisted contaminated with GMOs – and farmers have paid the selection to develop a non-GM rice that can tolerate price. several days’ complete submersion, for example during Contaminated crops demand a lower price than flash floods7. conventional or organic crops. In Brazil in 2007, conventional soya was contaminated Scientists say the greatest hope to with up to 9% GMOs1 , but there develop new crop varieties to was no compensation for the "Seeking a technological food fix for meet future challenges of farmers affected. Practically no world hunger may be... the most increased salinity, drought and country in the world has a law commercially malevolent wild goose other problems is expected to be ensuring that GMO producers or chase of the new century." through conventional plant growers are held liable for genetic Dr Richard Horton, editor-in-chief breeding and marker-assisted contamination. of The Lancet. selection techniques. New GM crops do not reduce Farmers are taken to court if they farmers’ reliance on pesticides and save seeds for replanting. herbicides Monsanto sues several hundred US farmers a year for Ecological systems cannot be fooled: if a pest or weed saving seeds collected from its GM plants. In court species is removed from the food web, another moves judgements farmers have been forced to pay in to replace it. In India in 2007 the cotton harvest was Monsanto over $21 million. A much larger amount of either not effective against Indian cotton pests or money – up $160 million – is estimated to have been 8 devastated by a ‘secondary’ pest that was not deterred paid in out-of-court settlements . by the Bt toxin in GM cotton planted. This meant that GM crops do not solve hunger or poverty farmers who had paid premium prices for the GM Bt Soya and cotton, the most widely planted GM crops, cotton seeds had, if they could afford it, to apply extra are grown on industrial-scale farms for export to rich pesticides to combat this secondary pest. In the first countries as animal feed and fibre; they do not address nine months of 2007 over 800 cotton farmers in India rural poverty and hunger either at source or committed suicide, deeply in debt and in despair at not 2 destination. On the contrary, large scale GM being able to provide for their families . plantations threaten production of crops 9 No commercially-available GM plant developed to date and local livelihoods . has increased yield, enhanced nutritional qualities, can Industrial-scale farming develops at the expense of resist drought or is salt tolerant. small farms growing diverse produce for local needs. Insect-resistant cotton has a poor performance record The percentage of the population living in poverty in in many parts of the world, particularly during Paraguay, which has seen a rapid expansion in the extremes of temperature experienced in and 3 cultivation of GM soya, rose from 33.9% to 39.2% Australia . In Argentina, average cotton yields were 10 between 2000 and 2005 . Soya plantations now cover higher from 1987-96, the decade before GM cotton 4 more than half of cropland, and 90% of this is was introduced, than they have been since . genetically modified. Up to 100,000 small farmers Studies of Roundup Ready soya, the most widely have been evicted from their lands since the start of planted GM crop, suggest that it has on average 5- the soya boom in Paraguay. Countries that refrain from planting GM crops are References subject to undue pressure After Zambia rejected America’s surplus GM maize 1 Central de Associaçoes da Agricultura familiar do Oeste de Parana, (as food aid) in 2002, a US ambassador said the 2007. Coexistencia imposible: contaminaçao genética na produçâo de soja no Brasil. Documento enviado a CTNBIO e aos ministeros country’s leaders should be tried for “the highest integrantes do Conselho Nacional de biossegurança. 11 crimes against humanity” . Three years later the 2 Kranthi, K.R et al. 2005. Temporal and intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac drought-stricken country reported record maize expression in Bt-cotton and its influence on the survival of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera). harvests with an export surplus. No GMOs have been Current Science 89: 291-298 12 grown . Petition to Indian Prime Minister from participants in Mass Candlelight Vigil on October 2nd 2007 to support Indian farmers and Agriculture. In Brazil in October 2007 security guards employed http://petitions.aidindia.org/october2/demands.php by the agrochemical firm Syngenta shot dead a http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2047898.cms 3 Chen, D., Ye, G., Yang, C., Chen, Y. & Wu, Y. 2005. The effectof high member of the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement temperature on the insecticidal properties of . Environmental (MST) during a protest at a biotech crops research and Experimental Botany 53: 333–342. facility13. Olsen, K.M., Daly, J.C., Finnegan, E.J. & Mahonr. R.J. 2005. Changes in Cry1Ac Bt transgenic cotton in response to two environmental factors: temperature and insect damage. Journal of Economic Entomology 98: Growing consolidation threatens choice and 1382-1390. pushes up prices 4 Based on data from FAOSTAT, ProdStat and Crops,Subject: Yields, In 2006 the top 10 seed firms controlled 20% more of Commodity: cotton lint; Year 1986-2006, (last accessed 2 December 2007). the seed supply (57%) than they had done just 10 14 5 Elmore, R.W., Roeth, F. W., Nelson, L.A., Shapiro, C.A., Klein, R.N., years earlier . Rising prices due to consolidation Knezevic, S.Z. & Martin A. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar combined with reduced variety are cutting choices yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal, 93: 408-412. 6 Howarth, C.J & Yadav, R.S. 2002. Successful marker assisted available to farmers. selection for drought tolerance and disease resistance in pearl millet IGER Innovations Four companies – Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Publications/Innovations/In2002/ch3.pdf Syngenta and Bayer – sell 41% of commercial seeds 7 Xu, K. et al. 2006. Sub1A is an ethylene-response-factor-like gene that globally. Monsanto has a virtual monopoly: its GM confers submergence tolerance to rice. Nature 442, 705-708 8 Center for Food Safety, 2007. ‘Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers’. Update. traits are found in 86% of biotech crops globally. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Monsanto%20November%2020 07%20update.pdf Recently, the UN conducted the International 9 Report prepared by coalition of civil society groups - Mesa de Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology concertación para el Desarrollo Rural Sostenible - presented at a UN 15 meeting in November 2007: ‘Cumplimiento del PIDESC en Paraguay for Development . This is the equivalent for 2000-2006. Uso indiscriminado de agrotóxicos en Paraguay: atropello a agriculture as is the IPCC report for climate change. los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y culturales de Comunidades Campesinas e indígenas’. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/ The UN Synthesis Report concludes that genetically info-ngos/descmesadrs1_sp.doc engineered crops are not a solution for poverty, 10 Ibid, and La Nación, 14 November 2007, http://www.lanacion.com.py hunger or climate change. 11 http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3058141.html 12 IPS news: ‘Maize Production (Almost) a Success Story’, 1 Feb 2007, Growing or importing GM crops does not reduce food by Isabel Chimangeni, http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36398 and animal feed prices. 13 The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazilian-land- It is widely acknowledged, including by the United activist-killed-in-dispute-over-experimental-gm-farm-399021.html Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 14 Etc group, ‘The World’s top 10 seed companies’, that a combination of many factors lead to the increase http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=615 in food and feed prices. These factors include overall 15 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) 2008. http://www.agassessment.org increased demand, poor weather conditions and the rapid expansion of agrofuels (also known as ). Price increases have occurred across the globe, even in the US, with the most permissive GM regulation. The rising prices are unrelated to GM crops. April 2008. Greenpeace European Unit. www.greenpeace.eu

Greenpeace campaigns for GM-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people with access to safe and nutritious food.

Genetic engineering of crops is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health.

We are not opposed to biotechnology in itself nor to the use of genetic engineering for the development of medicines or in other research processes,however Greenpeace opposes the release of genetically engineered crops into the environment.